Nostr Web Client

Largely agree. Drivechain proponents are very optimistic. I think reality will be different to expectations.

1. There's 256 slots, so while a concern, I dont see a huge amount of politics here. Getting 256 new projects on bitcoin would be a stretch anyway.

2. Yes, so that's why I dont think the side chain game theory works. Self interested rational miners will always take the coins in escrow, unless it's a small experiment, or they happen to stumble upon a sustainable structure.

3. The peg has no chance. Miner deposits coins, miner sells new coins on peg, rinse, repeat, and then they keep everything in the escrow. There wont be a peg unless they get lucky.

4. Drivechains wont kill shitcoins agreed. That is part of the optimism. But it will allow R&D over bitcoin, with different techniques which could become useful.

5. Merge mining can increase revenue, but yes, it could also lower fees on main chain. Whether fees go up or down is an unknown, but it's something that is good to study, because eventually the subsidy will go away.

6. Biggest risk of DC is a fork type accident, yes. Last thing you want is to end up with two coins. That only happened last time because roger would not listen to anyone, and thought he could kill bitcoin. I dont think this group are in the same category.

7. People are talking across each other and listening to about 10% of what the others say. But I think there's hope for a good discussion on the topic, education and all sides to learn something.

I'd love it if drive chains worked. But I dont think the game theory holds up in its current form, and it would be an experiment and educational discussion, where some other new ideas emerge. I think a lot of this can be build over nostr, given time, too.

jimbocoin 🃏 2y ago

> But I dont think the game theory holds up in its current form,

Agreed. 🤝

> and it would be an experiment and educational discussion, where some other new ideas emerge.

Ultimately, Bitcoin would survive the failed Drivechain experiment. My preference is to skip it.

There’s enough design space with Lightning, Taproot and now Nostr for experimentation. Introducing new and unpredictable incentives to main-chain mining is not worth the risk.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Melvin Carvalho 2y ago

But at some point we want bitcoin to be able to ossify and be a project that could last for centuries. DC folks, along with space chains etc. are the researchers and those that will push the conversation that bitcoin needs and is not getting enough attention. Else we could end up with large reorgs and no defense to it.

I agree there's a lot of innovation in those areas, espeically when you consider AI. But we do need R&D on the security budget and security factor both for sustainablity and also to raise the btc price ceiling.

Ulimately I think DC wont do much harm, and important things could come out of the research. I dont mind waiting another epoch too, but I fear people will just get complacent about an exponentially decreasing block subsidy, and not think about contingencies.

If that makes any sense ...

jimbocoin 🃏 2y ago

I disagree on the risk of harm and potential for benefit.

The harm is the increased risk of deep re-orgs and miner centralization (which is incentivized).

I see no benefit in supposed security budget research. Either the current block subsidy schedule will be sufficient for security or it won’t. If not, then some inflationary hardfork will emerge and become what we call “Bitcoin”.

No research is required. This is a problem for many years from now, to be solved by market selection.